House vote on incandescent lights planned

House Republicans are finally ready to make good on their promise to stay the execution of incandescent light bulbs.

After months of fiery rhetoric from the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, GOP sponsors of the legislation confirmed they're on track for a floor vote Monday on a bill that stops the federally mandated transition to more eco-friendly home lighting.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Republicans plan to bring their bill up under suspension of the rules, a House procedure usually used for noncontroversial items like Post Office namings that requires two-thirds support and prohibits amendments.

Lead sponsor Rep. Joe Barton told POLITICO that he is "working real hard on the Democratic side" to win about 40 of their votes. The bill currently has only Republican members as co-sponsors after Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) removed her name from the measure Thursday evening.

"Their eyes have been opened and they see the effect of it, and the jobs consequences and the energy efficiency," Barton said Thursday.

Conservatives have made the light bulb ban a rallying cry against big government, even if the idea was part of a 2007 energy law signed by then President George W. Bush.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) played a key role in drafting the original language, which prompted Beck and Limbaugh to question whether he was a suitable enough conservative when he made his bid last fall for the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Before he won the gavel, Upton promised to revisit the ban he helped craft.

"It is one of those issues out there that just inflames people," said Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), another lead co-sponsor. "What in the world were you doing restricting the kinds of light bulbs in my home?"

Barton, who lost out to Upton in the Energy and Commerce Committee race, said he’s been busy trying to make his case in more ways than one, including a recent fact-finding trip at a grocery store.

"I bought a 60 watt CFL [compact fluorescent light] bulb last night at Giant for $6 and I bought four 60-watt incandescents for 37.5 cents a piece, four for a buck and a half,” Barton said. “It takes a long time to make up efficiency when it's an 18 to 1 outlay up front."

The Obama administration has come out against the measure.

“At a time when American families are struggling from increased energy costs, it makes no sense to repeal this commonsense bipartisan proposal that saves consumers $6 billion annually," said Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera.

And the one Democrat who had co-sponsored the measure, Johnson, quickly dropped off the bill Thursday evening.

“My goal in co-signing H.R. 2417 was to make light bulbs less expensive and more accessible for low-income families, however many of my constituents feel differently about the bill and have asked that I remove my name,” Johnson said in a statement to POLITICO. “I support and listen to my constituents and have removed my name from co-sponsorship of H.R. 2417.”

Darius Dixon contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 4:40 p.m. on July 7, 2011.

Readers' Comments (82)

Isn't Barton the same windbag who apologized to BP? If he is paying $6 for an energy efficient bulb, he hasn't been in a store for a long time. I buy them for $1.25 and they last 6 times longer than regular electric bulbs. My electric bill has gone down by about 10%+ since I started using them in place of.incandescent bulbs. Savings of $12 per month. Oh now I get it, less efficient devices use more energy and that benefits energy companies. Old Joe does have an agenda..

DMK44 Yes but I assume when those energy efficient lights go out you just throw those mercury filled bulbs in the garbage and then they go to the dump where they all seep into the ground water. I hope you feel the savings are so great that your water/health is affected.....what a dumb a**

I got admit, I like the bulbs. I buy them now even though I could still by the old ones, but that should be my choice not the government. I picked up a 4 pack at Myers for $3.25 the other day. With the price being competitive the market will take care of the matter.

Those bulbs are expensive and they never last as long as it says on the package. Rising electric prices are pushing us that way, and when WalMart stops selling them it won't matter if the gov't allows them or not.

agza--don't call me names--shows your ignorance. Of course that is typical of little people like yourself who sit behind their screens and throw invectives. But for others info, I take the merc filled bulbs to a recycler,where they are properly disposed of..

So we must carry our pregnancies to term, we must not build mosques, we must not smoke cannabis, but we're supposed to rejoice at being FREE to waste energy? What bat-**** crazy degraded notion of Liberty are these people selling???

My electric bill has gone down by about 10%+ since I started using them in place of.incandescent bulbs. Savings of $12 per month.

Do you know that studies have shown that one of the biggest energy wasters in the average American home is that set-top box that cable and satellite providers give you? It's on 24 hours a day, and if you touch it you'll feel it's warm (and it takes lots of electricity to produce that heat).

CFLs are in the same category as cloth bags at the supermarket or carefully separating trash into half a dozen different recycling bins. It does little to actually reduce energy use or greenhouse gas emissions. But it soothes the guilty conscience that's so typical of modern liberals.

If you really want to save energy, ask your utility to send a representative to do a home energy audit. Or learn how to do it yourself. You may be surprised what the biggest consumers of energy are in your home.

Okay, if the feds criminalize the use of traditional light bulbs, what's next? You know there will be "a next". don't you? There will be a branch of Homeland Security that will come into your home and start slapping red stickers on illegal appliances and seizing your shortwave radio and so forth. All in the name of global warming or some other stupid, made-up excuse. You think I'm kidding? The feds have already come up with a plan to put domestic surveillance equipment on the little Post Office trucks. you see running around everywhere. They'll be sniffing and snooping and looking right through the walls of your house. The CIA and NSA and other federal spy agencies are precluded from spying on American citizens, but they do it anyway. Of course if you don't mind the TSA sticking their hands into your underpants, you won't care about them entering your home whenever they feel like it because you're a good citizen and worship the great god Obama who loves all his chilluns. Idiots.